HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Commissioner of Income Tax v. H.P. General Industries Corp. Ltd.
Income Tax Appeal No.29 of 2014 ·
Supplied court judgment; no neutral citation stated
Proceeding dismissed as withdrawn on counsel’s client instructions; no costs and no adjudication of the tax merits.
Division Bench · Rajiv Sharma · P.S. Rana
1. Facts of the case
In the proceeding captioned ITA No.29 of 2014, counsel for the Commissioner sought permission to withdraw on instructions from her client. No respondent appearance is recorded.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court permitted the withdrawal requested by counsel. It gave no substantive tax reasoning and did not identify an assessment year, disputed amount or statutory question.
3. Judicial decision
The proceeding was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. The operative text calls it a petition, while the caption records ITA No.29 of 2014.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Withdrawal ended this proceeding; the order contains no fresh determination of tax liability, no costs award and no express liberty to refile.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Client instructions explain the recorded disposal
The Court expressly records that counsel acted on instructions imparted by her client. The judicial act was to permit the requested withdrawal and dismiss the proceeding accordingly. The order does not explain the client’s reason. It would be unsupported to attribute withdrawal to a monetary limit, settlement, payment, acceptance of the assessee’s position or subsequent appellate event.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Preserve the source’s docket and wording
The heading identifies an income-tax appeal, ITA 29/2014, but the operative paragraph uses the word petition. The note preserves both features without relabelling the proceeding as a writ petition or supplying a different docket. A matching party name is also insufficient to merge this order with the separate ITA 9/2015 order dated 22 March 2016.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Withdrawal does not supply a tax ratio
No issue on the correctness of an assessment, deduction or tax treatment was decided in the supplied text. The absence of an adverse discussion is not a reasoned endorsement of an unidentified lower order. Before using this disposal to describe the history of a particular assessment, the underlying appeal and relevant orders would need to be matched independently.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Relief should not exceed the operative direction
The source records no costs. It grants no express fresh-proceeding liberty, stay, limitation extension or remand direction. Those benefits cannot be inserted into the result merely because withdrawal was allowed. The second supplied page contains only page numbers and is preserved with the complete original; it provides no additional reasons.
Source: PDF pp.1–2 · PDF pp.1–2
Original judgment and subsequent status
Read the original judgment / orderFull original read; every original page visually inspected.
Subsequent case status: Appeal, review, recall and stay status has not been independently confirmed.
About this note
Prepared with AI assistance. Read with the original judgment.
General information. Application depends on the facts, statutory provisions, assessment year and jurisdiction.